HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 1252 of 2005
Pyarelal Dhratlahre/Lahasee
...Petitioners
VERSUS
1. State of Madhya Pradesh
2. Dy. Director
3. The Collector, Bilaspur.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer
5. Assistant District Inspector of
School/A.D.I.S.
6. Tiwarilal
...Respondents
! Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the petitioner.
^ Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the
State/respondent No. 1 to 5.
Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Dated:18/08/2008
: Judgement
(Passed on this 18th day of August, 2008)
1. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the
order dated 29.04.1994 (Annexure A/5) whereby, selection of the
petitioner on the post of Junior Assistant Teacher was found as
illegal, and in his place, the respondent No. 6 was appointed
on the post of Junior Assistant Teacher. He further challenges
the legality of the order dated 06.05.1994 (Annexure A/6),
passed by the Deputy Director, Education, District, Bilaspur,
whereby, the selection of the petitioner was cancelled, being
erroneous. The petitioner prays for the consequential relief
and grant of salary w.e.f. April, 1994 onwards and
regularization of his service in the regular pay scale.
Originally, the application was filed before the M.P. State
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, and was numbered as O.A. No.
3653 of 1995. On dissolution of the Tribunal, the matter was
transferred to this Court and numbered as above.
2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the
petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant Teacher through
selection conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer (for short
`SDO’) and the President, Teachers Selection Committee, Lormi.
The petitioner was called for interview to be held on 08.02.94
pursuant to intimation dated 24.01.94 (Annexure A/1). The
petitioner was accordingly selected for appointment in Primary
School Putkikhurd, Block Pandariya, District, Bilaspur, by
order dated 28.02.94 (Annexure A/2). The petitioner joined the
service on 09.03.94 (Annexure A/4). Thereafter, by order dated
06.05.94 (Annexure A/6), the selection of the petitioner was
cancelled on the basis of complaint that his selection was
erroneous. Thus, this petition.
3. Shri P.S. Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that once the petitioner has been
selected and appointed on the post, his services can not be
terminated without affording an opportunity of hearing or
following principles of natural justice. The petitioner was
not given any opportunity of hearing to put forward his case
and no enquiry was held in presence of the petitioner. Thus,
the impugned orders dated 29.09.94 (Annexure A/5) and 06.05.94
(Annexure A/6) are vitiated and deserve to be quashed.
4. Per contra, Smt. Smita Ghai, learned counsel appearing for
the State/respondent No. 1 to 5 would submit that on the basis
of complaint made by Shri Bodhan Singh, Shri Sita Ram Yadav and
Shri Inderman, an enquiry committee, comprising of Shri G.S.
Dhananjay, Additional Collector, Bilaspur, Shri E. Kujur,
Deputy Collector, Deputy Director, Education and Shri Parasar,
District Coordinator, was constituted, and in enquiry, it was
found that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal as
other candidate namely Tiwarilal i.e. respondent No. 6, has
obtained more marks than the petitioner. Thus, the select list
was cancelled on the ground of being irregular and erroneous,
and the respondent No. 6, who obtained more marks, was selected
in place of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned orders dated
29.09.94 (Annexure A/5) and 06.05.94 (Annexure A/6) are proper
and justified. She would further submit that it was not
necessary to issue show cause notice to the petitioner, as for
want of opportunity of hearing, the case of the petitioner
would not have been prejudiced. The enquiry committee has
examined all the documents and marks obtained by all the
candidates, and thereafter the impugned orders were passed.
The petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,
after perusing the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it
is evident that the petitioner was selected through proper
selection conducted by the selection committee. The petitioner
was appointed on 28.02.94 (Annexure A/2). On the basis of
complaints made by Shri Bodhan Singh, Shri Sita Ram Yadav and
Shri Inderman, the Collector, Bilaspur, constituted a committee
as stated above. The Committee examined the entire selection
of the Junior Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools Suretha,
Putkikhurd, Baniyakua and Devpura. In the concerned Primary
School i.e. Putkikhurd, it was found that in the interview, the
respondent No. 6 secured 62 percent and the petitioner secured
51.3 percent. No application was made from village Putkikhurd
as required that the preference should be given to the
residents of concerned Primary School. The petitioner as well
as the respondent No. 6 belonged to the neighboring villages
i.e. Sagounadih and Bodhipara respectively, within the radius
of one kilometer. Thus, keeping in view the better performance
of the respondent No. 6 in the interview, having the similar
conditions, was selected and the selection of the petitioner
was quashed. It is not a case where without holding any
enquiry, selection of the petitioner has been cancelled. A
detailed enquiry of all the selections conducted by the SDO and
the President, Teachers Selection Committee, Lormi, was
examined and irregularity and glaring errors were found in all
the cases. Thus, the impugned orders were passed strictly on
the basis of merit. The method of selection was marks obtained
in interview alone.
6. The order dated 29.09.94 of the Collector, Bilaspur
(Annexure A/5), reads as under:
“2- dfu”B izkFkfed `kkyk iqrdh[kqnZ `kkyk
iqrdh[kqnZ ds dfu”B lgk;d f’k{kd in gsrq
,lkr+ vkosnu izkIr gq,A lfefr us lk{kkRdkj
Hkh fy;k vkSj 62% vad vftZr djus okys Jh
frokjhyky fuoklh xzke cks/khikjk ds LFkku
ij 51-3% vad izkIrdrkZ Jh I;kjsyky fuoklh
xzke lxksukMhg dks p;fur fd;k x;k gSA xzke
iqrdh[kqnZ ls dksbZ vkosnu izkIr u gksus ds
dkj.k fudVorhZ xzke cks/khikjk rFkk
lxksukMhg tks iqrdh[kqnZ ls yxHkx leku nwjh
vFkkZr 1 fd-eh- dh ifjf/k esa gS] ds
mEehnokjksa ds uke ij lfefr us fopkj fd;k
rFkk I;kjsyky ftldk izkIrkad 51-3% gS dks
p;fur fd;k gS tcfd frokjhyky dk izkIrkad
62% rFkk fudVorhZ xzke cks/khikjk dk fuoklh
gS] dk p;u fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA**
7. In the matter of Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J&K Bank
Ltd. and others1, the Supreme Court observed as under :
“The principle of natural justice, it is
trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are
admitted, an enquiry would be an empty
formality. Even the principle of estoppel
will apply. [See Gurjeewan Garewal (Dr.) v.
Dr. Sumitra Dash.] The principles of
natural justice are required to be complied
with having regard to the fact situation
obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a
straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied
in a vaccum without reference to the
relevant facts and circumstances of the
case. (See State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh
and Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa. ”
8. The above ratio was referred with approval in the matter
of P.D. Agrawal Vs. State Bank of India and Others2.
9. Applying the well settled principles of law on
applicability of principles of natural justice to the facts of
the present case, wherein, the glaring irregularities were writ
large in the selection, it was not necessary to afford an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as the facts are
crystal clear as above stated.
10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE